Why 10-speeds on the Tour?
Dan
double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
triple? I know that many road cycling aficionados shun triples but the
reason for this is unknown to me. It would seem to me that as the
cassette gets wider, the rear hub gets narrower and therefore the rear
wheel becomes more fagile. I have a Campy 9-speed and the spokes on
the cassette side are laced pretty flat and I have to straighten the
rear wheel far more often than the front.
Jay Hill
> I have read that the USPS team bikes have a 10-speed rear hub and a
> double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
> triple? I know that many road cycling aficionados shun triples but the
> reason for this is unknown to me.
weight
Pete Biggs
> I have read that the USPS team bikes have a 10-speed rear hub and a
> double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
> triple?
Lighter, less shifting complications, maybe lower q-factor. Assuming it's
Shimano, I would guess Shimano are paying the team to publicise the new
equipment and get some more r & d done before they release it to the
public!
> I know that many road cycling aficionados shun triples but the
> reason for this is unknown to me. It would seem to me that as the
> cassette gets wider, the rear hub gets narrower and therefore the rear
> wheel becomes more fagile. I have a Campy 9-speed and the spokes on
> the cassette side are laced pretty flat and I have to straighten the
> rear wheel far more often than the front.
Campagnolo get 10 sprockets onto exactly the same hubs, mainly by using
thinner sprockets & spacers. Your hub could take a 10-speed right now.
So the dishing issue is irrelevent.
Personally, I also prefer triple 9sp to double 10sp. The range can be
wider and the chains & cassettes are cheaper. The pros don't need such a
wide range. Just a *little* wider than normal 9-speeds will be
advantageous for them.
~PB
Steve Pedder
the old 9 speed Shimano and the soon-to-be-released 10 speed. They've kept
the overall cassette body the same, just adjusted the spacing to squeeze in
another cog/spacer and ran a narrower chain. The pro teams ride either Dura
Ace or Record drivetrains. As such, they really don't have a choice as to
the number of speeds the particular system offers. The Postal team and
others were using the new 10 speed Dura Ace, which will be available to the
public in September.
Can you really blame Shimano for going to 10 speed when their main
competition has had 10 speeds for a few years? IMHO, I don't think the pros
need a triple. These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back (I use a 27 here in CO). If those guys
can climb Hors Category climbs at better than 80 rpm in a 39x23, why would
they need a triple? Plus, a triple would add weight to the bike. You may
have noticed on occasion that LA operates his front derailleur with a
downtube shifter on the "climbing bike", so they are certainly fanatical
gram counters. Maybe the UCI does not permit a triple drivetrain, who
knows, but even if they did, my guess it that "tradition" would not allow
it.
"Dan" <banquo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:474614f7.03072...@posting.google.com...
Bill Davidson
> IMHO, I don't think the pros
> need a triple.
A few of them ride it so they must think they need it.
> These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
> and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back (I use a 27 here in CO). If those guys
> can climb Hors Category climbs at better than 80 rpm in a 39x23, why would
> they need a triple?
They don't always go 23 on the climbs. Sometimes they even go to a 27.
There's a lot of gear choices out there and riders will go with what works
best for them. They also don't always use 130 BCD cranks. Sometimes they
use 110's which allow them to go as low as 34 on the front with a double.
Tyler Hamilton reportedly used a 36 in front this year for certain climbing
stages with an FSA 110 BCD double crank.
--Bill Davidson
--
Please remove ".nospam" from my address for email replies.
I'm a 17 year veteran of usenet -- you'd think I'd be over it by now
Ed Rasberry
Steve Pedder wrote:
> SNIP
You may
> have noticed on occasion that LA operates his front derailleur with a
> downtube shifter on the "climbing bike", so they are certainly fanatical
> gram counters. Maybe the UCI does not permit a triple drivetrain, who
> knows, but even if they did, my guess it that "tradition" would not allow
> it.
>
I had not noticed thats interesting, I guess frt derailleur shifts occur
much less often on the big climbing days?
Ronald
> "tradition" would not allow it.
Triples are allowed, but like you said they add weight and lighter gears can also be accomplished in other ways. Most climb don't
need extreme gearing but in last years Vuelta some teams used triples on the Angliru.
"Steve Pedder" <spe...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:OicVa.573$YN5.178@sccrnsc01...
bfd
> the old 9 speed Shimano and the soon-to-be-released 10 speed. They've kept
> the overall cassette body the same, just adjusted the spacing to squeeze in
> another cog/spacer and ran a narrower chain. The pro teams ride either Dura
> Ace or Record drivetrains. As such, they really don't have a choice as to
> the number of speeds the particular system offers. The Postal team and
> others were using the new 10 speed Dura Ace, which will be available to the
> public in September.
> Can you really blame Shimano for going to 10 speed when their main
> competition has had 10 speeds for a few years? IMHO, I don't think the pros
> need a triple. These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
> and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back (I use a 27 here in CO). If those guys
> can climb Hors Category climbs at better than 80 rpm in a 39x23, why would
> they need a triple? Plus, a triple would add weight to the bike. You may
> have noticed on occasion that LA operates his front derailleur with a
> downtube shifter on the "climbing bike", so they are certainly fanatical
> gram counters. Maybe the UCI does not permit a triple drivetrain, who
> knows, but even if they did, my guess it that "tradition" would not allow
> it.
>
>
hills; in contrast to Jan Ullrich who powers up the same hill,
probably in something like a 39x23. For really steep mtns, like those
found in the Giro and Vuelta, cyclingnews has a report, with pictures,
showing many of the racers using double cranks, including the winner
Gilberto Simoni, using as low as 38x30 or 39x28. Why not use a
triple? Some pros have done so. But the main reason is gearing. Racers
want the closer gearing offered by a double. And as the previous
poster said, if they can get up those mtn passes in a 39x23, no need
for a triple. For more on gearing, see Sheldon Brown's excellent
articles here:
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:9411a749.03072...@posting.google.com...
> closer gearing offered by a double.
A triple provides closer gearing. Instead of, say 12-27 you can run a
12-23 and get equally low gears with closer spacing.
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
Arthur Clune
: "bfd" <bfd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:9411a749.03072...@posting.google.com...
:> closer gearing offered by a double.
: A triple provides closer gearing. Instead of, say 12-27 you can run a
: 12-23 and get equally low gears with closer spacing.
Indeed.
The main problem with a triple in racing is a) the wider q-factor
and b) the risk of dropping it onto the little ring not the middle.
When you're at your limit and not thinking straight, you want to drop
the chain from the big ring to the 39 and not have to worry about not
hitting the 30. Doing the latter tends to result in you going backwards
through the pack :)
Arthur
Andrew Bradley
> I have read that the USPS team bikes have a 10-speed rear hub and a
> double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
> triple?
You don't want to be front changing on a climb. Too risky.
Andrew Bradley
Qui si parla Campagnolo
double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
Don't really need the 30t of the triple for these guys...the 10s cogset range
is the same as 9s...just adds an interior cog somewhere..
Plus it's all about weight...don ya know...
<< It would seem to me that as the
cassette gets wider, the rear hub gets narrower and therefore the rear
wheel becomes more fagile >><BR><BR>
Rear wheel dimensions, center to flange is the same for 8/9 or 01s..
<< I have a Campy 9-speed and the spokes on
the cassette side are laced pretty flat and I have to straighten the
rear wheel far more often than the front. >><BR><BR>
Need a better wheel builder...easy to make a 8/9/10s rear wheel reliable..
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Qui si parla Campagnolo
need a triple. These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
Used to climb the same climbs but with dirt roads and 42 front rings and 23 or
25 rear cogs...
39t rings indeed....
Charlie C.
> There is no difference in the rear axle spacing or the wheel dish
> between the old 9 speed Shimano and the soon-to-be-released 10 speed.
> They've kept the overall cassette body the same, just adjusted the
> spacing to squeeze in another cog/spacer and ran a narrower chain. The
> pro teams ride either Dura Ace or Record drivetrains. As such, they
> really don't have a choice as to the number of speeds the particular
> system offers. The Postal team and others were using the new 10 speed
> Dura Ace, which will be available to the public in September.
> Can you really blame Shimano for going to 10 speed when their main
> competition has had 10 speeds for a few years? IMHO, I don't think the
> pros need a triple. These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in
> the Alps and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back (I use a 27 here in CO).
> If those guys can climb Hors Category climbs at better than 80 rpm in a
> 39x23, why would they need a triple?
Actually I believe that a LOT of riders were using Triples in a stage at
last years Vuelta. There was one particular climb that was amazingly steep
and many riders (including Heras) chose to use a triple for it. (David
Miller, after being hit by a car a couple of times on the ascent, made it to
the top and quit the race by laying his number down about a foot from the
finish line. He was protesting that the stage was included in the race.)
Bill Davidson
> The main problem with a triple in racing is a) the wider q-factor
> and b) the risk of dropping it onto the little ring not the middle.
>
> When you're at your limit and not thinking straight, you want to drop
> the chain from the big ring to the 39 and not have to worry about not
> hitting the 30. Doing the latter tends to result in you going backwards
> through the pack :)
When I first set up the triple, I did that several times. After a
few thousand miles though, I got to where I didn't do it anymore.
I can't remember the last time I did it. You develop a sense of
how far to move the lever. It's kind of like before I upgraded to
indexed shifting in the back. :-)
Eric Murray
Qui si parla Campagnolo <vecc...@aol.com> wrote:
>spedder-<< IMHO, I don't think the pros
>need a triple. These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
>and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back >><BR><BR>
>
>Used to climb the same climbs but with dirt roads and 42 front rings and 23 or
>25 rear cogs...
Yea, at 50 rpm. Lots of riders had knee problems.
Many riders, even top racers, go faster using lower gears.
Also, the various tours have been searching out ever steeper
roads like that 20%+ ski station road they used in the Giro
this year. That's the stuff that makes the pros put triples on.
>39t rings indeed....
110mm BCD cranks and < 39t small rings are now the rage
according to _Velo_...
Eric
Dan
cyclists seem to be a pretty good bunch. I am new to cycling and you
are all helping me learn. From this discussion I have learned that I
pedal like a duck, my bike is too heavy, I have more gears than needed
and my rear wheel wobbles unnecessarily. Tho I may provide comic
relief, I am having fun and that is the main thing - please don't tell
me I need to shave my legs.
where I live it doesn't snow so the paved roads can be quite steep. It
is hard to keep the front wheel down on some hills near my home. I
used to ride an 8spd double and have switched to a 9spd triple. I
found that the lower gear availible causes me to go slower - which can
be a good thing. My knees seem happier.
After some thought I have realized that my rear wheel with Campy 9-spd
has been behaving quite well this year. I found that the rim had a
kink in it (slight out of plane s-bend from a spill) causing it to
need regular adjustment. When I identified the problem, I got a new
rim. I laced the thing myself (my first) and it has been very healthy
since.
Have Fun,
Dan
John Forrest Tomlinson
> (David
> Miller, after being hit by a car a couple of times on the ascent,
made it to
> the top and quit the race by laying his number down about a foot
from the
> finish line. He was protesting that the stage was included in the
race.)
This bit is irrelevant to the discussion -- Millar was protesting
dangerous conditions with cars and with wet, tricky descents, not the
inclusion of the ultra-steep finishing climb.
smokey
> Steve Pedder wrote:
> > IMHO, I don't think the pros
> > need a triple.
>
> A few of them ride it so they must think they need it.
>
> > These guys are climbing incredibly steep stuff in the Alps
> > and Pyrenees with a 23 on the back (I use a 27 here in CO). If those guys
> > can climb Hors Category climbs at better than 80 rpm in a 39x23, why would
> > they need a triple?
>
> They don't always go 23 on the climbs. Sometimes they even go to a 27.
> There's a lot of gear choices out there and riders will go with what works
> best for them. They also don't always use 130 BCD cranks. Sometimes they
> use 110's which allow them to go as low as 34 on the front with a double.
> Tyler Hamilton reportedly used a 36 in front this year for certain climbing
> stages with an FSA 110 BCD double crank.
>
> --Bill Davidson
a 110/74 crank makes a lot more sense for most recreational riders.
i'm running a double with 46/34 rings and have no problem climbing the
steep hills around here. it would be nice if the bike manufacturers
put them on at the factory, instead of making us spend more money to
switch them over. pros need a 53t ring, but how many of us have the
legs and lungs to use a 53/39? smaller sizes make more sense and would
probably result in a lot more riders using double cranks.
smokey
Qui si parla Campagnolo
dangerous conditions with cars and with wet, tricky descents, not the
David whines a lot...he wanted to have the last 15k of the TdF TT neutralized
as well...
Qui si parla Campagnolo
according to _Velo_... >><BR><BR>
Having 53t big rings and smaller than 39t small rings are gonna cause a lot of
front shifter/der problems. Perhaps triple front ders or bacxk to friction left
shifters!!!
Marcus Coles
> span-<< 110mm BCD cranks and < 39t small rings are now the rage
> according to _Velo_... >><BR><BR>
>
> Having 53t big rings and smaller than 39t small rings are gonna cause a lot of
> front shifter/der problems. Perhaps triple front ders or bacxk to friction left
> shifters!!!
>
Wow!! A friction shifted double chainring what a concept.
Push the lever one way it goes up, push it the other way it goes down.
Easy trimming, reduced weight.
Quick call it "An improved method for the switching of bicycle chains"
and patent this!
Mark Hickey
>jt-<< Millar was protesting
>dangerous conditions with cars and with wet, tricky descents, not the
>inclusion of the ultra-steep finishing climb. >><BR><BR>
>
>David whines a lot...he wanted to have the last 15k of the TdF TT neutralized
>as well...
I can almost agree with him on that one though - it really would have
been tragic had the horrendous conditions changed the outcome of the
entire race. I felt like I was watching a figure skating competition
- will he be able to land the triple? ;-)
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame
Precious Pup
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> span-<< 110mm BCD cranks and < 39t small rings are now the rage
> according to _Velo_... >><BR><BR>
>
> Having 53t big rings and smaller than 39t small rings are gonna cause a lot of
> front shifter/der problems. Perhaps triple front ders or bacxk to friction left
> shifters!!!
Note that Sheldon has used wide steps in the front and reported no significant difficulties. I use a 53x33
double (110) from time to time, and I use a standard 105 double front shifter with it. That puts the 105 out
of its stated range of 14t chainring difference, but no distinct difficulties are apparent. I use friction
for the front, and I have been pleasantly surprised that the chainring shifts are not bad at all, certainly
not like I had anticipated. Furthermore, my front big ring has no pins, ramps, or gates.
So I just don't think the problems would be as bad as one might anticipate. I anticipated much worse
performance than that which actually panned out. I believe a well engineered system (probably meaning special
f-der, ramps, pins, and gates) from the manufacturers would/could work quite well since mine is nothing
special. The only things I paid special attention to were: chainline and the spacing _between_ the two
chainrings. (For my 9sp, I put an extra 0.6 mm spacer(s) between the arms and the 33t ring. This goes
against the conventional wisdom of putting the ring teeth center lines _closer_ for 9sp over 8sp, but actual
practice clearly demonstrated improved downshift performance with this configuration.)
Reasons for a double:
[] don't need a triple
[] double is a bit lighter
[] front shifting simpler/straightforward; binary rather than trinary
The 110 double does one thing better over the 130/135 doubles: It (the 110) makes available about 1.5 to 2
gears lower than the 130/135, depending on how one chooses to define a "gear step." It will be humorous if
the marketing wizards figure out that the next great hot "new" thing is the 110 double. We can only hope that
I will indeed be made to laugh.
asqui
> John Forrest Tomlinson <j...@jt10000removethesewords.com> wrote:
>> "bfd" <bfd...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:9411a749.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
>>> closer gearing offered by a double.
>
>> A triple provides closer gearing. Instead of, say 12-27 you can run
>> a 12-23 and get equally low gears with closer spacing.
>
> Indeed.
>
> The main problem with a triple in racing is a) the wider q-factor
> and b) the risk of dropping it onto the little ring not the middle.
What? You mean they don't use indexed front derailers? (Apart from Lance "I
don't need a front derailer because I'm going to kick the chain into the
right chainring to save weight" Armstrong)
Dani
Bill Davidson
> What? You mean they don't use indexed front derailers? (Apart from Lance "I
> don't need a front derailer because I'm going to kick the chain into the
> right chainring to save weight" Armstrong)
Shimano road groups are not indexed in the front.
I vaguely recall hearing that the reason Lance does this is because
it's easier to trim the front deraileur with a downtube shifter than
with a brifter and trimming becomes more critical when climbing. I've
never used brifters so I wouldn't know.
A Muzi
> asqui wrote:
> Shimano road groups are not indexed in the front.
What did you actually mean to write there?
Shimano is _the_ indexed front system ( STi)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Bill Davidson
> What did you actually mean to write there?
> Shimano is _the_ indexed front system ( STi)
Apparently I was mistaken. I thought it was only the MTB groups
that were front indexed. I can see how that might make them
harder to trim.
B
maybe Lance should try Ergo for the front.
B
(remove clothes to reply)
Qui si parla Campagnolo
significant difficulties. I use a 53x33
double (110) from time to time, and I use a standard 105 double front shifter
with it. That puts the 105 out
of its stated range of 14t chainring difference, but no distinct difficulties
are apparent. I use friction
We have a winner!!!!
friction shifters, like i mentioned...
<< Perhaps triple front ders or back to friction left
> shifters!!! >><BR><BR>
STI and a 53/34.....
Qui si parla Campagnolo
been tragic had the horrendous conditions changed the outcome of the
entire race. I felt like I was watching a figure skating competition
The conditions were similar for everybody...if they changed dramatically,
maybe.
Paul Kopit
Campagnolo) wrote:
>We have a winner!!!!
>
>friction shifters, like i mentioned...
I recall Sheldon't post and he uses Veloce Ergo with the setup.
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
>I have read that the USPS team bikes
>have a 10-speed rear hub and a double
>chainring. Why is this preferred over an
>8 or 9-speed with a triple?
A pro racer, riding for a team that is equipped and sponsored by the
bicycle/equipment manufacture is an employee of that company.
If Trek want's the crowds seeing him riding a bike equipped with the
latest overkill in cogsets, he really doesn't have much choice in the
matter
>I know that
>many road cycling aficionados shun
>triples but the reason for this is unknown
>to me. It would seem to me that as the
>cassette gets wider, the rear hub gets
>narrower and therefore the rear wheel
>becomes more fragile. I have a Campy
>9-speed and the spokes on the cassette
>side are laced pretty flat and I have to
>straighten the rear wheel far more often
>than the front.
All true. Which is one of the main reason I still stubbornly hang on to
my 7. A stronger wheel, and greater range afforded by the triple. Really
helpfull whilst dragging 13 kilos of camping gear up the side of the
Sierras.
As for why Lance doesn't use this combo, see the reason above. Also, the
added weight of a triple is considered by many racers (who can be as
obstinate as I am sometimes. LOL!) believe that the extra weight of a
triple is not worth the benefits.
Just look how long it took the other teams to seriously adopt Lance's
gear down and really spin method for climbing. Even Ullrich, who is
famous for mashing the big gears on the cols is starting to wise up.
May you have the wind at your back.
And a really low gear for the hills!
Chris
Chris'Z Corner
"The Website for the Common Bicyclist":
http://www.geocities.com/czcorner
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:20030731091044...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> Mark-<< I can almost agree with him on that one though - it really
would have
> been tragic had the horrendous conditions changed the outcome of the
> entire race. I felt like I was watching a figure skating
competition
> >><BR><BR>
>
> The conditions were similar for everybody...if they changed
dramatically,
> maybe.
And many, many riders crashed. It's one thing for most of the
athletes to fall down in, say, football. It's quite another for it to
happen in bike racing. It's appropriate that there is risk in bike
racing -- and a few cyclists of lesser skill or bad lcuk fall down.
But it's simply not right to run a road race in conditions in which a
large percentage of riders will crash (except perhaps a historical
anomaly like Paris to Roubaix), or the only way to get a top placing is to crash.
Calling David Millar a whiner for speaking up instead of acting like a
sheep (like too many top bike racers) is wrong. He should be admired
for speaking out, and the fact that he actually won the event he
criticized makes his argument stronger.
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
>I had not noticed thats interesting, I
>guess frt derailleur shifts occur much
>less often on the big climbing days?
It may also be that all of them ride a crossover gearing range. This
puts the high gears on the big ring, and the low gears on the little
ring.
So when they reach the bottom of the hill, they shift to the small inner
ring and they don't have to use the front again until they reach the
top.
Racing is one of the few times I find any practical sense in crossover
gearing (JMHO)
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
>Wow!! A friction shifted double chainring
>what a concept. Push the lever one way
>it goes up, push it the other way it goes
>down. Easy trimming, reduced weight.
>Quick call it "An improved method for the
>switching of bicycle chains" and patent
>this!
Actually, I never really saw the reason for front indexing anyways,
especially on a double. For the exact, although possibly sarcastic
reason you mentioned.
I'm going back to my old Sh. bar-cons on my tourer partly for that
reason, even though it has a triple. In fact especially because it has a
triple. I like to be able to adjust the front mech to allow for chain
angle.
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
>Shimano road groups are not indexed in
>the front.
That must be something new. My RSX has front index and I hate it.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
But most did not...
<< But it's simply not right to run a road race in conditions in which a
large percentage of riders will crash >><BR><BR>
Don't agree...If those that fell had just slowed down, they probably would not
have crashed, or used different tires or something. It's not as if they were
riding along, straight, flat, and then fell down..
<< Calling David Millar a whiner for speaking up instead of acting like a
sheep >><BR><BR>
This is his MO...He did the same in last years Vuelta..
Bike racing is not a fair weather sport..If he wishes to race only in the dry
sunshine, he should try Nascar...
John Forrest Tomlinson
> JFT-<< And many, many riders crashed. >><BR><BR>
>
> But most did not...
>
> << But it's simply not right to run a road race in conditions in which a
> large percentage of riders will crash >><BR><BR>
>
> Don't agree...If those that fell had just slowed down, they probably would not
> have crashed, or used different tires or something. It's not as if they were
> riding along, straight, flat, and then fell down..
When two of the top four crash, it's not right. When the a guy who is
riding to a top two placing has to slow down (Armstrong) and give up
any chance of winning, it's not right. It's not like there was one
tricky corner that everyone knew about. There were numerous bends in
the last 15K of the race. To race to win meant to take a big risk of
falling.
> Bike racing is not a fair weather sport..If he wishes to race only in the dry
> sunshine, he should try Nascar...
THere's a difference between wanting to only race in ideal conditions
and not wanting to race is extremely dangerous conditions. Bike races
are cancelled due to ice. Bike races sometimes are cancelled due to
snow. Is that OK with you? What about lightning? In your view, is a
rider a whiner if he complains about a road race with ice on the road?
If not, how come extremly slipperfy conditions due to rain is not OK.
Or should races be run on ice? Millar wasn't complaining about rain.
He was complaiing about an extremely slippery road.
What about cars? Can riders complain about excessive cars in the
road? Or is that whining. Millar's bike was run over by a car at the
Vuelta btw -- while he was clipped in...
>
> << Calling David Millar a whiner for speaking up instead of acting like a
> sheep >><BR><BR>
>
> This is his MO...He did the same in last years Vuelta..
This is what is most disturbing about your comments. In your opinion,
is anyone who complains about their working conditions a whiner? When
is an athlete allowed to make complaints or criticisms about the way
their sport is run? Or is that not allowed?
JT
Qui si parla Campagnolo
tricky corner that everyone knew about. There were numerous bends in
the last 15K of the race. To race to win meant to take a big risk of
falling.
Yep, why it's called 'racing' and not 'touring'....
H. M. Leary
Then how come its called the Tour day (de) France??...:)
--
łFreedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darknessł
- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
John Forrest Tomlinson
> JFT-<< It's not like there was one
> tricky corner that everyone knew about. There were numerous bends
in
> the last 15K of the race. To race to win meant to take a big risk of
> falling.
> >><BR><BR>
>
> Yep, why it's called 'racing' and not 'touring'....
Good one. So if there's ice on the road it's a go then, or slow down
and lose? Where is the line?
And what about criticizing a course with, say, ice? Is that whining
too? In your world Millar should just shut up and take it, right?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
and lose? Where is the line? >><BR><BR>
Don't know, ask the TdF organizers and UCI. Yhey have neutralized races before,
for conditions...But even the Giro, with the epic Andy H. ride on the
Gavia...they didn't neutrailize that...
<< In your world Millar should just shut up and take it, right? >><BR><BR>
Nope, is he wished to complain to the TdF/UCI, of course he has every right to
do so...but he seems to do so a lot more than the other participantds of this
and other races(Like 2002 Vuelta)
Lou Holtman
> JFt-<< Good one. So if there's ice on the road it's a go then, or slow
down
> and lose? Where is the line? >><BR><BR>
>
> Don't know, ask the TdF organizers and UCI. Yhey have neutralized races
before,
> for conditions...But even the Giro, with the epic Andy H. ride on the
> Gavia...they didn't neutrailize that...
>
Andy H huh?
Who won that stage? Answer: Eric B.
Lou
The Netherlands
Khoomei
weighs less than a 10 speed cog as well. Probably a lot of the cogs
are the same. Not to be a retro grouch, but isn't 10 speed technology
overkill?
On 28 Jul 2003 08:34:04 -0700, banquo...@yahoo.com (Dan) wrote:
>I have read that the USPS team bikes have a 10-speed rear hub and a
>double chainring. Why is this preferred over an 8 or 9-speed with a
>triple? I know that many road cycling aficionados shun triples but the
>reason for this is unknown to me. It would seem to me that as the
>cassette gets wider, the rear hub gets narrower and therefore the rear
>wheel becomes more fagile. I have a Campy 9-speed and the spokes on
Qui si parla Campagnolo
overkill? >><BR><BR>
I have had 10s technology for years...2 in the front, 5 in the rear....
Mark Hickey
>A double weighs less than a triple. You would think that an 8 speed
>weighs less than a 10 speed cog as well. Probably a lot of the cogs
>are the same. Not to be a retro grouch, but isn't 10 speed technology
>overkill?
A double doesn't always weigh more. The crank and rear derailleur
weighs a little more, but for a given range of gearing, the triple has
a much smaller, lighter cassette. I've added it up and it's almost a
wash for most component groups. Certainly not enough weight
difference to get excited about.
Chris Zacho The Wheelman
>A double weighs less than a triple. You
>would think that an 8 speed weighs less
>than a 10 speed cog as well. Probably a
>lot of the cogs are the same. Not to be a
>retro grouch, but isn't 10 speed
>technology overkill?
Call me a retro grouch, but IMO, eight is stretching it! :-3)